Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 142974. September 22, 2003.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
388
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
November 22, 1999, in CA-G.R. CV No. 58277, as well as
its resolu-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 22-28. Penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr., with
Presiding Justice Jainal D. Rasul and Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
concurring.
389
2
tion, dated April 5, 2000, denying herein petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration. 3The Court of Appeals had
affirmed in toto the judgment of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Panabo, Davao del Norte, Branch 4, in Civil Case
No. 91-01, the decretal portion of which reads:
[The Spouses Petra and Sancho Sevilla] are the registered owners
of a piece of land situated at San Vicente, Panabo, Davao [del
Norte] with an area of 14.038 hectares, more or less and covered
by Original Certificate of Title No. P-15615.
In a Deed of Sale executed and ratified before Notary Public
Jose B. Banzon and entered in his Notarial Registry as Doc. No.
148; Page No. 30; Book No. LV; Series of 1986, it appears that on
May 25, 1986, a portion of the above-mentioned parcel of land
with an area of 1.000 hectare, more or less, was sold to the
[Spouses Shem G. Alfarero and Aurelia Tagalog, Spouses Gines G.
Alfarero and Noni Cruspero, Joel G. Alfarero and Naomi G.
Alfarero] in the amount of P12,000.00.
_______________
390
_______________
391
Succinctly put, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals
commit a reversible error of law in holding that, for
purposes8 of determining9
the “date of conveyance” under
Sec. 119 of CA No. 141, as amended, the date of execution
as provided for in the notarized document was controlling?
and (2) Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioners’
Motion for New Trial?
_______________
7 Rollo, p. 8.
8 SEC. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or
homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the
applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the
date of the conveyance.
9 The Public Land Act.
392
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Alfarero vs. Sevilla
On the first issue, the petitioners insist that it was error for
the Court of Appeals to have relied upon the notarized
Deed of Sale offered by the respondents in making a
finding that the date of conveyance of the disputed
property was May 25, 1986 and not December 1985. They
call our attention to the fact that the date “May 25, 1986”
was only superimposed, evidently when the document was
notarized. Given this fact of superimposition, it cannot be
conclusive when opposed to the petitioners’ allegation that
the property in question was actually sold to them in
December 1985, as shown by the Deed of Sale they offered
in evidence.
Respondents counter that what is stake is the
evidentiary value of a private instrument of sale vis-à-vis a
notarized Deed of Sale. They submit that the court a quo
committed no reversible error of law in giving more
credence and weight to the notarized document. For the
court’s holding is in accordance both with the rules of
evidence and prevailing jurisprudence, say the
respondents.
We find petitioners’ arguments less persuasive than
respondents’.
First, recall that in Civil Case No. 91-01 for repurchase
and damages, the petitioners herein raised the affirmative
defense of prescription. As the burden of evidence lies with
the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, petitioners
had the duty of proving the affirmative allegations in their
affirmative defense, namely, that the action had prescribed
as the property was conveyed to them sometime in
December 1985, while Civil Case No. 91-01 was filed only
on January 3, 1991, or beyond the five-year period
prescribed by Section 119 of the Public Land Act. The
records show, however, that at pre-trial, petitioners moved
for a judgment on10the pleadings, which motion was granted
by the trial court. In so doing, the petitioners thus omitted
at the first instance to present any evidence, which would
categorically and definitely establish that the sale of the
disputed property did indeed take place in December 1985.
Petitioners are estopped by their own actions and cannot
now come to this Court insisting that the Court of Appeals
erred in holding that there was no evidence to support their
allegation that the sale took place in December 1985.
Second, recall that the date May 25, 1986, which the
court a quo accepted as the date of the sale was contained
in a notarized in-
_______________
10 Records, p. 67.
393
_______________
11 Zambo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104166, 30 July 1993, 224 SCRA
855, 859.
12 Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88383, 19 February 1992, 206
SCRA 339, 345-346.
13 Gevero v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 77029, 30 August
1990, 189 SCRA 201, 206; Rebuldela v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No.
L-70856, 11 November 1987, 155 SCRA 520, 529.
14 SEC. 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or
reconsideration.—Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved
394
_______________
party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order
and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of said party:
395
——o0o——
396